[President_Elect_Shang]

Ok, let me start off by saying that Imperator Fyron is correct when he states “Leaving it to private email doesn't really work for a public forum. What about everyone else that is/was reading and responding to the Posts? Why should they be excluded?”
This is an excellent observation and I stand corrected. Thank you Imperator Fyron. I am not offering an excuse for myself I simply want to point out that most people cringe when psychologists enter a room. It is my speculation that this reaction is thanks to Freud.

Before I begin allow me to set up four conventions.
First: The explanation I offer is for critical reading and though it reflects the knowledge and training I have gained thus far in psychology it may prove to be wrong. Psychology is a living science and as with any living science there is always room for error and thus growth. This is merely a reflection given to the best of my ability.
Second: As I create this explanation I will attempt to keep it as lay but concise as possible. This is not mean to be an insult. I only intend to make for easy reading, not sound like a textbook so to speak. I am sure that I will sound like a textbook, as the number of errors made by QuarianRex is numerous.
Third: To shorting this post I have attempted to avoid reposting QuarianRex but it was necessary in some parts, where necessary I will proceed QuarianRex with a (Q). I had to so that I could formulate a proper reply and you may want to read it to follow along. I apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you. Also I am not an English major so don’t beat me down for any type O’s.
Fourth: A person in the Cognitive paradigm may not agree with my answer in part or whole. I respect my brothers and their viewpoint; however, I am of the Behavioral paradigm and thus cannot answer as they would.

(Q) “It has only been in the Last couple hundred years that we have even considered other races of man to be “human.” This may be correct; my point was not over the validity of the statement but over the accuracy. It can be debated that our inclusion of other species of hominid, which I believe QuarianRex means by “human” is a reflection of the development of xenophobic viewpoints. I however believe that the church has more to do with it than anything. The admittance of other hominids is disruptive to the concept of a god created man. In other words evolution vs. creationism is not my field and I am not attempting to point fingers or support either view.

(Q) “Xenophobia (on a species wide level) is an instinctive evolutionary adaptation…” This is referred to as reification. Meaning that you have given name to an abstraction and treating it as if it is real. No one can open up your head, remove and measure something called xenophobia. I called it a nominal fallacy earlier and must correct myself now. The instinct that (Q) is referring to psychologist have studied in detail. If it was xenophobia than all animals can be called xenophobic. This is clearly wrong. The “Social Exchange Theory” which simply put states: When a member of a species commits an altruistic act it is only when they are most likely to receive help back in the future. The genes for pure asterism have most likely been removed from the gene pool by natural selection. Simply a birds warning call puts that one bird at a greater risk since it attracts the attention of the predator. Thus birds that made warning calls all the time for any species have been removed from the gene pool already. Humans display what is termed altruistic behavior but this is simply not true. Yes you may stop to help that stranger in need but ask yourself whom you are more likely to help a stranger or one of your neighbors? There are also a few other factors involved all of which have been studied. For example the bystander effect: you are less likely to assist if many other witnesses are present, guilt will increase the likely hood of helping, mood at the time and even more that I will not mention.

(Q) states that we can override instinct. I agree with this but his calling it tamed is in question only because tamed is a term better applied to beasts. There is no debate that we override or instincts but it is more likely to be a combined factor of culture and our parenting along with genetic influenced aggressive tendencies. Our ability to “think” and “reason” weighed with the knowledge of the laws of our culture are also factors to consider. If being tame was truly the factor in question than we would not need to have the laws against murder and theft to name a few. Ask yourself when the Last time was you have seen a tame dog attack a human. They can be provoked, and in some inbreeding has caused mental instability but it is not the norm only the exception. As for (Q’s) claim to day-to-day survival this is simple not true. This viewpoint is most likely created by human egotism and the miss leading effect of the English language. Day-to-day survival is very much alive and well, it is the force that makes humans get up and go to work for instance. It may not have the classical guise of hunting for pray but you cannot refer to any instinct in a partial manner (as (Q) does) any more than you can refer to partial gravity or partial physics. It is simply not scientific. For the statement of equality I would like to know what is equal in our culture or any for that matter. If humans, in the partial context (Q) refers to, where truly equal than there would be no need for animal rights activists. The green peace movement is not just for the animal habitat it is also recognition of human dependency on the environment. This is getting lengthy and I did warn of it before hand. Stay with me I am almost done. Vegetarians are a choice in diet and should not be assumed as anything else. Humans are omnivores by evolution but particular tastes and choices of food vary by availability and culture and not by a desire to save the animals, if this where the case than vegetarians are taking from the herbivores.

In all of human history there is far fewer years of peace compared to years of war (to the best of my knowledge), therefore I submit to you the reader my conclusion that there is no such thing as “[(Q)] our species wide benevolence.” If such a thing did apply than it would apply to us before it applied to another life extraterrestrial or otherwise. (Q) himself points to animal rights activists, why do we have them if we are benevolent? He is also contradicting himself when he makes the statements that we are “the meanest, most aggressive, most blood thirsty race on the planet.” How can you be both benevolent and bloodthirsty? “… reverting to the efficient engines of destruction that two billion years of evolution has shaped us to be.” This is a colorful metaphor but does not hold water so to speak. At what point did humans throw off the tendencies to not destroy? To the best of my knowledge it is the ongoing process of destruction that leads to global wars and armed uprising to mention a few. (Q) also seems pretty specific in that two billion years of evolution refers to humans and not all life. As I stated above you cannot call a dog or frog xenophobic so he must be referring to humans. This is simply not a true statement for any other reason than humans have only been on this world in any form for four to five million years. After a little research at the University of Berkeley website I found Phonix-D’s statement that two billion years is pre-dinosaur was correct. Two billion years ago is the beginning of the first fossil records of life on earth. I really doubt they where xenophobic at any point. Finally let me say that you cannot label genes as xenophobic that would be teleological. Meaning that it would say or imply that genes of any species evolved for xenophobia. This put another way would imply that genes themselves are capable of directing their own evolution to some goal or purpose. I could be wrong but I believe that Darwin put that notion to rest; I believe that what (Q) is referring to would be closer to Lamarck’s Theory of Evolution.

Thank you for your time and patients,
President-Elect Shang

Edit: I like this new avatar so much!

[ December 07, 2002, 19:57: Message edited by: President Elect Shang ]